Savage scout rifle

[agtman]

For the OP and any others who might be interested, ... more detail on the SR concept, including an exhaustive review of recent commercial specimens, can be found in Richard McCann's book, The Scout Rifle Study.

Here's the Amazon link to the book, where you'll also find several reviews posted:

https://www.amazon.com/Scout-Rifle-S.../dp/1983512540

No connection to the author, just passing along SR-relevant info.

[Runs With Fire]

I've got a t53 Chinese mosin nagant. It pretty much functions as a scout rifle for me. My issue with it is it's incredibly loud on the user end. The 7.62x54r is a bit too big, at least for anything I need in west Michigan. I do bring it with me when I set up camp up north in bear country.

[bamaranger]

Emcon, thanks for that posting of the 1966 Cooper article. I have page one, with the photo, clipped from a vintage magazine, in my archives, but I have never read (or seen) the entire article. What a treat to read vintage Cooper. His tone is abrasive to some, but he made people think and his stance and ideas have not gone away. Note that the "scout rifle", thought not necessarily following all his guidelines, is now produced by at least 3 major manufacturers.

Runs with fire, regards that Mosin type carbine. I have socked away a pretty good amount of x54R ammo, corrosive, from when you could get it cheap. Purpose was to feed a PSL, but I have shot a round of it from the semi-rifle. I have been in the market for a beater Mosin(Chineses) carbine, found some that were just too far gone. The Russians I've found are priced way high, and are actually pretty good looking. YOu are on the right track with yours as a knockabout woods rifle. Saw a photo somewhere of one in a rough camp, the guy had left the bayonet on it, and it resided stuck in the ground next to the campfire!!! I'd have to take the bayonet off mine....lighter. An IER scope would be next.

OK, so trying to get back on track. I'm glad Savage is keeping the scout concept alive. And if the new look Savage scout sells, good for them. When they first brought out their original model, I had to have one. Now that I have a history with it, I suppose I won't part with the rifle. Ideally, I'd like to see about an 18" barrel, standard taper, blind magazine, and a re-engineered IER mount. The current one, as on the original, reminds me of a biplane. Ruger has that right with their rendition, and on the Frontier. I don't need the muzzle device either.

[Jim Watson]

Some years ago, there was a Scout-ish rifle kind of making the rounds of the stores here until it got to somebody who knew what it was good for. I am not a hunter so was not seriously interested.

It was a Remington Model 7 .308 with forward mount scope. It lacked the Cooper configuration of clip loading, BUIS, and Ching Sling.
What it did do was make weight*. Cooper wanted the Scout to weigh no more than 3 kilograms, 6.6 pounds.
What it did have was a low scope mount and a high comb such that the rifle came up to aim very smoothly, just as easy as a lever action with iron sights.

It changed hands a lot because it was not well understood. As a hunting rifle as handy as a lever action but more accurate and more powerful, it was great.
But hunkered down on a bench for centerfire plinking, its light weigh and low scope power were liabilities.

*I see that the new iteration of Savage Scout weighs 7.72 lb. That is up in the range of Cooper's Lion Scout. OK, get the Savage in .450 Bush and have at them.

[DPris]

I wouldn't reject any candidate for a Scout simply because some part of it violated the Cooper specs, most especially a few ounces in weight.

You're the one who'll be toting it, he's long gone.
If you're happy, that's the spec that matters.
Denis

[Jim Watson]

Cooper himself addressed the overweight scout, saying that if you wanted a Springfield action, you could not make weight with any usual barrel and stock; but if that was what you liked, fine.

[agtman]

Cooper himself addressed the overweight scout, saying that if you wanted a Springfield action, you could not make weight with any usual barrel and stock; but if that was what you liked, fine.

Interesting, ... because for some years now I've wanted to build a bolt-action Scout off a Springer 1903 or Remy 03A3 action, assuming I could find a suitable 'doner' rifle. Yeah, it would be an '06 chambering rather than a 308, but hey ...

I wasn't aware the '03/'03A3 action would disqualify the rifle (even after cutting the barrel back to 18") from 'making weight' under Cooper's criteria.

[emcon5]

I wasn't aware the '03/'03A3 action would disqualify the rifle (even after cutting the barrel back to 18") from 'making weight' under Cooper's criteria.

It wouldn't automatically, I don't think, but the "Holy Grail Weight" of 3 KG (scoped and slung but empty) is really hard to get to, I don't think the Steyr even made it. It it probably possible to make the maximum of 3.5 KG, but it will be close.

There is a lot of things that have been read in to the definition that are not actually there (like the stripper clips loading). It is also worth noting that the definition changed over time. Good discussion of it here:

http://www.scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=971.0

I am in the process right now of building a Scout on a Mauser action, it is currently 6 lbs 9 oz with sling and scope mount, but no glass or rings yet, and I am still working on the rear sight. The Burris 2-7 Scout scope is listed at 13 oz, so I think I will make it under the max weight.

[Jim Watson]

Heck, Cooper said that if you were satisfied with iron sights, a Krag would be all you needed.

[emcon5]

Heck, Cooper said that if you were satisfied with iron sights, a Krag would be all you needed.

[Citation Needed]

[wwhitman]

Originally Posted by DPris

I wouldn't reject any candidate for a Scout simply because some part of it violated the Cooper specs, most especially a few ounces in weight.

You're the one who'll be toting it, he's long gone.
If you're happy, that's the spec that matters.
Denis

Yep, thanks.

[agtman]

The Burris 2-7 Scout scope is listed at 13 oz, so I think I will make it under the max weight.

If you're referring to Burris' fixed power 2.75x Scout scope, it's listed at 7-ounces. That's what I run in QD rings on the Ultimak rail on my 7.62/.308 Mini-G 'Scout.'

For the money it's a pretty decent optic.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/10...-reticle-matte

[agtman]

I wasn't aware the '03/'03A3 action would disqualify the rifle (even after cutting the barrel back to 18") from 'making weight' under Cooper's criteria.

It wouldn't automatically, I don't think, but the "Holy Grail Weight" of 3 KG (scoped and slung but empty) is really hard to get to, I don't think the Steyr even made it. It it probably possible to make the maximum of 3.5 KG, but it will be close.

I think you're probably right on the weight issue. But what I like about the base '03/'03A3 action is that it's of military origin and sturdy Mauser lineage, so you could expect it to withstand hard field use (think 'Rough Country' terrain) under a variety of weather conditions.

Yeah, the 1st Generation Steyr Scouts didn't 'make weight,' but as I recall Cooper wasn't too terribly upset over that deficiency because at least some firearms maker had finally taken his Scout ideas (or most of them anyway) and attempted to put them into a commercial product you could handle and test.

The max weight of 3.5kgs = 7.716lbs - and, as you say, that's supposed to be 7.7lbs including with a scope mounted, wearing a sling, but unloaded.

[agtman]

I've got a t53 Chinese mosin nagant. It pretty much functions as a scout rifle for me. My issue with it is it's incredibly loud on the user end. The 7.62x54r is a bit too big, at least for anything I need in west Michigan. I do bring it with me when I set up camp up north in bear country.

There are bears in Russia's Siberian region, so I'd assume the 7.62x54R has taken down more than a few over the decades.

Up in the wilds of Michigan's U.P., the Mosin would make a perfect 'camp rifle' or 'cabin rifle.' Maybe more so if set up in 'Scout' mode and carbine length.

[agtman]

I wouldn't reject any candidate for a Scout simply because some part of it violated the Cooper specs, most especially a few ounces in weight.
You're the one who'll be toting it, he's long gone. If you're happy, that's the spec that matters.

Well said.

Okay, because I'd forgotten what it weighed, I put the .308 Mini-G Scout - scoped, with sling, and unloaded - on the scale this morning, and the needle stopped right on 9.9lbs. That's with it wearing an Olongapo stock pack designed to hold two spare en bloc clips, but without said clips in the pouches. The weapon does, however, 'make length,' being 38".

Maybe strange, but it doesn't feel that heavy carrying it.

[Jim Watson]

[Citation Needed]

I read G&A, GG, and CC for a long time, stuff just kind of sticks.

I'm an engineer. I get paid for providing cites.

[OldScout]

Very nice looking rifle and just what I want. But, 800$ plus is totally out of my budget.

[agtman]

Very nice looking rifle and just what I want. But, 800$ plus is totally out of my budget.

As kids today like to say, "there's an app for that," ...

... well, there's a book for the cost issue:

Poor Man's Scout Rifle: https://www.amazon.com/Poor-Mans-Sco.../dp/158160730X

If you have a 'doner' rifle, or know where to pick one up on the cheap, you're most of the way there.

[emcon5]

Or you could join the Scout Rifle Forum for free.

Really good thread on the subject here: http://www.scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=6707.0

One clarification on the weight thing, evidently according to Col Cooper, 3 KG/6.6 lbs was the ideal weight, with 7lbs being the maximum in the Col's eyes for a "True" scout rifle. 3.5KG/7.7 lbs was the maximum for a "Pseudo Scout".

Honestly I don't think a few ounces either way is a huge deal, the whole point is a handy, lightweight utility rifle.

The forward mounted scope is not a hard/fast requirement either, a traditionally mounted low power scope would also work. Contrary to popular belief, the position of the scope was not to facilitate stripper clip loading (although that is a bonus if the rifle is capable of using them), but because it is fast, and allows use with both eyes open and doesn't interfere with peripheral vision.

[agtman]

Honestly I don't think a few ounces either way is a huge deal, the whole point is a handy, lightweight utility rifle.

Correct - plus reliable and durable.

The forward mounted scope is not a hard/fast requirement either, a traditionally mounted low power scope would also work. Contrary to popular belief, the [forward] position of the scope was not to facilitate stripper clip loading (although that is a bonus if the rifle is capable of using them), but because it is fast, and allows use with both eyes open and doesn't interfere with peripheral vision.

Well, yeah, but there are at least four advantages to a forward-mounted, IER low power scope (2x, 3x, or 4x -max):

* Better for target ID than iron-sights alone, although that's an advantage it shares with a traditional receiver-mounted scope;

* Allows for uninhibited peripheral vision;

* Allows for quick re-charging of a fixed or detachable magazine with stripper clips (assuming the receiver has a stripper clip guide);

* Doesn't interfere with immediate resort to using the rear aperture sight if the optic for some reason becomes unusable.

That last one is an often overlooked advantage which the forward mount has over the receiver mount, especially if using QD rings. Most folks running a low-power receiver-mounted scope are doing so in 'fixed' (non-QD) rings that take time to remove in the field, even if you've got the tools in a pouch on your belt. Plus, none of the receiver-mounting systems I'm aware of incorporate an aperture sight that can be pre-zeroed for just this contingency.

Cooper like the old BRNO 600 short-action (.308) rifles for exactly that reason: they had a "pop-up" peep aperture built into the rear of the receiver bridge. You could mount a scope over the receiver, or even run a forward-mounted IER scope, and if something went bad with the optic, after removing it you just pressed a little button on the side of the receiver and up popped that 'peep' sight, and you were still good to go with the hunt.

[DPris]

Picked up the Savage 110 Scout today.
Initial impression is very positive on the stock (light years ahead of their First Gens), but I'm not liking the iron sights.

Too small, too hard & slow to find the front blade with the optic rail covering much of it.
Denis

[agtman]

Picked up the Savage 110 Scout today.
Initial impression is very positive on the stock (light years ahead of their First Gens), but I'm not liking the iron sights.
Too small, too hard & slow to find the front blade with the optic rail covering much of it.

That doesn't sound good.

[DPris]

I think Savage missed the boat on those sights.
There's only a small section of the front blade visible above the optic rail.
If you had quick-detach mounts & needed to use the irons as backups, they'd work, but they don't meet Cooper's original quick-reaction ghostring suggestion.

Using the irons, the rail fills up the bottom 50% of the aperture, limiting target visibility.

If you didn't plan on using a scope, removing the rail would help greatly.
Denis

[agtman]

Heck, Cooper said that if you were satisfied with iron sights, a Krag would be all you needed.

Huge red B.S. flag on that.

Yeah, you're gonna need to document that claim in relation to the descriptions and specs Cooper set out in his Scout doctrine.

[agtman]

I think Savage missed the boat on those sights.
There's only a small section of the front blade visible above the optic rail.
If you had quick-detach mounts & needed to use the irons as backups, they'd work, but they don't meet Cooper's original quick-reaction ghostring suggestion.
Using the irons, the rail fills up the bottom 50% of the aperture, limiting target visibility.
If you didn't plan on using a scope, removing the rail would help greatly.

Sounds like Fuddleys built the gun, but never spent the time to vet it at the range - by shooting it irons-only and with a scope. They should've caught that issue.

See, ... this is what I'm talking about.

"Scout Rifle" sounds marketable to gun-makers, but few want to invest the dollars and the time to build one (and then vet it) that actually adheres to Cooper's specs and is both usable and practical in the field, not just shooting off sand bags on a cushy bench at the range.